You saw Meade's video where 2 over-aggressive protesters interrogated a couple of nice ladies who drove into Madison just to stand quietly, in the sea of Walker-haters, and hold their pro-Walker signs. In the video, you can hear that the 2 protesters are not making that much sense, and when Meade tries to mediate — meadeate — for them, other protesters in the area close in on Meade.

There's very tense confrontation, and it flips into paranoia and incoherence. At 4:35, you hear a woman say, "Are you a plant?" At 4:57: "I think we know you're a Walker plant?" At 5:00: "You [are a Walker plant] on this gathering and we can tell." At 5:17, a large man barges into Meade and grabs the Flip camera, and actually gets it out of Meade's hand. No one in the crowd does anything to help Meade in this assault, and Meade grabs the man's arm and wrests the camera out of his hand. This man says "Get your hands off me," as if he's a victim. After he assaulted Meade, he acts like he's the peacemaker and says — referring to Meade and the 2 pro-Walker women — "They are fools and idiots and just ignore them." He continues to bump his large body into Meade as he's saying that. A woman says, "These are Walker plants."

I see some people descending into irrationality — beginning to form a cultish mentality that demonizes outsiders. Meade was at a demonstration, photographing it. A demonstration is — to a clear-thinking person — a collection of people asking to be seen, wanting to be photographed. Yet when they perceive that Meade isn't one of them they flip — it's a Flip camera — into fear. Meade had been trying to talk to them rationally about why the pro-Walker woman might not want to debate her ideas in that setting, and instead of seeing Meade as a citizen who's finding out what's going on and helping 2 women who are surrounded and outnumbered, they spread their "plant" theory. And it's not just a theory. They know he's a plant.

But he's not a plant. He's a human being. An individual human being. And so are all the protesters, but I fear they are losing their grip on that reality.

The leaders at the "Peaceful Demonstration" are now openly forming gangs. Gangs only allow people to join join them or be attacked. The next step is to act on their threats, which means IEDs or acid thrown in the face of suspected enemies of the gang. Then the gang leader starts from fear to cull his rivals for gang leadership and voila, a new Dictatorship has been born.

Let's face some facts - Madison is home to a lot of mentally ill people, and has been for a long time. Many are marginally street people, many ride the buses all day, heavily medicated. They often (even in the off season of protests) are found in or near the Capitol. In part because the bus networks link up via the Capitol Square, in part because it offers a nice warm place for homeless folks. I suspect a lot of these folks have been dragged in on the periphery of these protests, and no, it doesn't surprise me a bit that that there are some folks on the edge at these protests.

This is a growing problem. I was stalked through the rotunda yesterday by a much disheveled looking protester shouting obsenities at me. He followed me because I was wearing a suit and shouted at the back of my head until I got past security to go upstairs. He looked like he had lost his mind.

I've been called a plant before because I didn't want to see a specific state agency in my home state get unionized. It's only the agency that handles elections, though. No big deal, right? After all, an agency that handles the financial disclosure reports of political committees and also handles complaints against poltical committees would still be neutral and balanced if it happened to join an organization that gives to certain political candidates, right?

Even as an ardent Democrat who opposes this bill, it's impossible to watch these videos and not be disturbed. For me, the protesters have really just become a nuisance, but I can tell it's much worse than that for those on the other side.

You have a real problem when peaceful protests turn into a violent discourse, and it certainly seems like that's what happening here, in Madison.

What Althouse doesn't tell you is that the pro-Walker people have been infiltrating cabbages and vine tomatoes among the demonstrators. In his other hand, the one not holding the flip camera, Meade held a geranium which he was brandishing in the demonstrator's face.

I think this comes from the fact that most of their arguments are bogus and they know it internally, which conflicts with the facade they must maintain. They are forced to violate their own principles in front of everyone. That is why they are losing it.

They may accomplish the victim status after all. When all else fails, break down and cry. Children

You have a real problem when peaceful protests turn into a violent discourse, and it certainly seems like that's what happening here, in Madison.

What did you THINK was going to happen?

The President is encouraging the Unions. The Media is covering up the story and contributing to the demonization and mob mentality. The Union bosses have been corrupt for generations. They are feeding on the taxpayers. Sucking money out of the system in order to purchase Democrat (and the occasional Republican) politicians in order to get more money.

We have generations of Union controlled education that has dumbed down our students to a point where the people in Idiocracy look intelligent.

Drew said: "I can't shake the feeling that some terrible act of violence is coming"

And it's all over asking a fat, spoiled section of society to contribute, not a lot, just a bit more.Meanwhile public and private companies have been belt-tightening and laying of employees for years.What will happen when Gov. walker is forced to go through with his promise to lay-off workers?

"But he's not a plant. He's a human being. An individual human being. And so are all the protesters, but I fear they are losing their grip on that reality."

The conduct you describe -- getting in the face of 2 elderly ladies, assaulting Meade -- doesn't quite fit that explanation. The conduct is designed to intimidate and browbeat dissenters into silence, for the purpose of advancing an agenda. These folks haven't "lost their grip on the reality" that those they are trying to intimidate into silence are "individual human beings". Instead, they just see those folks as the enemy, and are trying to crush them with overwhelming force. The people will rise up and destroy the oppressors, and the fellow-travelers with them! Thuggish, but hardly new.

The military metaphors that the 'civility' cops wanted to ban after the AZ shootings would fit here better than soft psycho-stuff.

It is absolutely true that the media is trying to hide the story. I just spent a few days in the hospital, where well-meaning people brought me newspapers that contained either no information or very little information about Wisconsin -- and no news at all of the protests. Not until I got back to my computer and this blog could I catch up with what is really going on. Meade and Althouse have done a remarkable public service here.

Yes, I'm sure there's some big conspiracy by the media to hide this. Believe me, if they were trying to hide what's happening, Fox News would've been all over the story because it's a goldmine for the ideologies they represent.

I think what's more likely, and we all know it, is that the media is tired of what's happening here. It's been going on for two weeks and doesn't seem to have an end in sight. There are other, more pressing issues they feel they need to cover...for example, I'm pretty sure something's happening in Libya.

Following up on Emil:Obviously, you get a mix of people and motivations at these events. I remember the Mifflin Street Block Party (is that still an annual event?) as an undergrad at Madison in the mid 70s. It would turn out some very colorful characters, but also a frankly creepy element that everyone intuitively knew to avoid. Hope that's not happening here. But, then, how could it not?

"So, if you go to the protest and you are not on their side, you're a "plant"."

This is interesting to me because it illustrates in real life what I've noticed on blogs.

On blogs you're called a troll. There certainly are trolls, and the trolls around here tend to be the ones who call other people trolls right off the bat, but a lot of times people get accused of being trolls simply because they are pointing out a different perspective.

People who come primarily for the solidarity think anyone who comes for a different person has a malicious intent.

"Some are losing their grip on reality."

The sad thing is that 'some' can often define the whole cause as those 'some' become much more visible and aggressive. It is the responsibility of the 'others' in their own movement to keep those incoherent 'some' from getting out of control. Far too often, however, the 'others' cheer on the 'some'.

This isn't a Left or Right thing, it's a human collective thing. A lot of Church history can be summed up much the same way, not least of all is the infamous Salem Witch Trials.

Here, though, we see it in action with Senators out of state and increasingly aggressive protesters who are suffering from the effects of basically being dismissed by the governor who was supposed to be rattled by them now.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them becomes a Walker substitute they can express their tantrum towards.

Like others here, I've seen too much from Madison to think most of these people had any contact with reality in the first place. These protests have not been flattering to the cause.

And when I see signs with fists on them...you know what, you lose me right there. I've never been to a Tea Party nor a 9/12 function where anyone had a sign bearing a fist logo, not even the real whack-a-doodles in attendance. Fists frighten reasonable people and for good reason. The logo is selling the brand and we've decided we don't want it, thank you so much.

Stay safe, Meade and Ann, and thanks for all your good work. Whatever their problems now, these folks aren't going to worry about anything as lame as human decency or civility. Keep yourselves safe!

If I had to formulate an opinion based upon what I've seen from Madison since this all began, I'd have to say, "Progressive Cesspool" and run like hell in the other direction.

Dogzilla (did I really just type that?)--the fist is an international symbol for strength, defiance and solidarity. I don't think it's meant to symbolize violence, which is what you're insinuating. Maybe you should read up on your history?

I was in the capitol building yesterday and can certainly confirm what AA is saying about the protesters holed up in there--mentally, they're pretty much gone. I was successfully able to get medical attention for one of them after talking with a police officer for a few minutes. They had to cart the poor kid off to the hospital, and I'm fairly sure he won't be returning

They're just school teacherettes, so one can't really expect much from them. Besides not being very bright, they're used to making noises and being around kids who're forced to pretend that they're taking the noises seriously.

Likewise, the Fist is associated with violent factions of the socialist movement.

And they like it that way. That is exactly what they want to communicate. They are uninterested in distancing themselves from it.

The leftist media repeatedly scolded Republicans to distance themselves from those horrible Tea Party people. But they show little interest in distancing themselves from the violent leftist/unionist mobs.

By the way, it seems that the teachers who started this protest have pretty much left the scene. The demonstrations in Madison seem to be either bused-in unionists or general lefty agitators -- professional protesters of the sort that are drawn to Madison like a magnet.

This has gone beyond budget issues and is now nothing more than a mass demonstration of lefty hatred for "the other."

I watched some of the videos of the chanting,blabbering, horns blowing, drums beating and I can't comprehend people retaining their sanity(if they were sane in the first place)for very long in this Tower of Babel type atmosphere?

Like others here, I've seen too much from Madison to think most of these people had any contact with reality in the first place. These protests have not been flattering to the cause.

back in reality, Wisconsin is split. But only on whether or not Walker should be recalled. Conservative papers that endorsed Walker aren't endorsing what he is doing now, or his budget proposals. But do keep dreaming if it makes you feel better. You can even tune into Fox and find some soothing palm trees in Madison.

Ever see the movie Nashville? In the beginning it has a very funny theater of the absurd quality to it but it becomes less funny as time wears on until it abruptly ends in a sudden assassination. The Madison protests are beginning to have this feel. They won't end until either the Democrats come home at let the process work or until someone gets killed.

The best way for a public figure [and Ann, you and Meade are now public figures in Wisconsin] to protect his/herself in a situation like this is to get a permit to carry. You don't even have to walk around armed. You only need to let people see you at the range and put the idea in their heads that you are not an easy target. Unfortunately, current Wisconsin law doesn't allow its citizens the right of self protection and that puts you in danger from deliberate actions by union thugs and the next deranged left wing fanatic who has a psychotic break. I understand that conceal and carry is on Governor Walker's agenda. If passes I think you take advantage of it.

Not to be flippant, or to doubt your on-site observations - but I would suggest that many of these demonstrators were never very far away from paranoia and incoherence to begin with. Or violence for that matter.

I don't doubt that many thought it would be a case of sit in, protest, march around for a couple of days and the Establishment would cave because that's how the senior profs (the ones with hair halfway down their back, but none on top of their heads) told them how it was in the 60s.

Nobody told them 'Nam was a war we could afford to walk away from (or so some thought), but this is a war that must be won.

...instead of seeing Meade as a citizen who's finding out what's going on and helping 2 women who are surrounded and outnumbered, they spread their "plant" theory. And it's not just a theory. They know he's a plant.

Ah...so you disagree with Fen's description of the video? You never did answer that question.

O'Reilly was talking to a reporter in Madison, live. They went directly to some b roll footage of a protest somewhere else, with palm trees. What's weird is Fen would rather believe the alternate reality than the real one. He's not alone there.

With Flip in hand, new Meadia means not showing the Walker protestor, asking for details from the protestors, but not revealing your name while acting as a scold. Clearly this is more of an intimation tactic vs a news gathering one, and as I have said on number of threads, designed to provoke not evoke.

I'd just like to point out that the "palm tree incident" which is now spreading wildly on my FB feed is actually taken entirely out of context by the people who would label it as a lie on Fox's behalf. Here is the entire clip from the show:

From the beginning, it is made obvious that these clips are supposed to show how Wisconsin has affected protests in other parts of the country. The violence in other areas is escalating, which is why they are showing these clips. Never once does O'Reilly OR the reporter insinuate that those are clips from Madison.

I wish people would do at least one google search before (ironically) propagating lies.

No they just go on and on about Madison, then show a clip from someplace with Palm Trees.

And if you had watched the original clip which I linked to above, you would have seen them use that exact sequence of clips from other places when they were talking about violence in protests around the country. When talking with the reporter in Madison, they use live feed of Madison for a bit, and then go back to the general "Union Protests" clip montage. When you see the entire interview in its original context, there is nothing nefarious about it.

garage: O'Reilly was talking to a reporter in Madison, live. They went directly to some b roll footage of a protest somewhere else, with palm trees. What's weird is Fen would rather believe the alternate reality than the real one. He's not alone there.

MadisonMan: No they just go on and on about Madison, then show a clip from someplace with Palm Trees.

No. They. Don't.

Both of you are being willfully stupid. They are clearly talking about Union Thugs being bused in from out of state.

And nowhere do they even imply that the clip is of Madison. Even the clip has the tag "Union protests".

I would love to see an analysis of how this protest has benefitted the local economy.

A sort-of nearby neighbor of Mine runs A restaurant downtown, RIGht Off the square, that serves a kilLer breakfast anD lunch, but I've not seen him lately to asK If business There has bumped up appreCiably. But it must HavE, I'm thinkiNg.

What the clip -- both the extended play, and the one from the start -- lacks is clarity. I'm sure this is what O'Reilly wants, a presentation that is open to discussion on whether or not it is fairly showing what's happening. The fact that we are debating it I think is the answer -- it's very bloggable simply because it allows each person to see what they want to.

Fen at least Meade didn't edit in protestors from another sate, palm trees and all to make a false and dishonest connection, so I give him credit or that. But I have seen enough of Meade's work to recognize he has been "pushing' his Flip into the faces of all sorts of folks from the police to speech teachers in the hope of stirring up some violence.

R-V: You devil!! You caught the old palm tree fake out. Who other than an academic could have figured out that there ARE NO PALM TREES in Madison. Those Fox people, trying to fool the public again with their sneaky palm tree trick. Can't fool a fool though. Do you honestly think that the other side is that fucking stupid?

So we've gone from protesters losing their grip to certain commenters on this blog.

The criticism of Fox is nitpicky, really that criticism should be directed towards the broadcast director. Perhaps he blanked out and/or the switcher goofed. Not like O'Reilly had a secret footpedal he could use to change backdrops.

Garage and RV: Look at it this way. Perhaps with the palm trees you can have some in-migration. What with the great benefits and good weather Wisconsin might make it to the the big time. That tricky O'Reilly can't put one over on the ever so observant left. HAAAHAAHAAHHAHA

MadisonMan: What the clip -- both the extended play, and the one from the start -- lacks is clarity.

Only to an idiot. The subject is 1) unions protesting in solidarity across the nation, and 2) union goons being bussed into Wisconsin.

Please explain what part of the vid led you to believe it was a protest in Madison.

The fact that we are debating it I think is the answer

The fact the we are "debating" it only answers the question: "is madisonman a partisan dolt". And I'm really surprised at you - I expect this kind of nonsense from libtards like Garage, but not from you.

Again, please explain what part of the vid led you to believe it was a protest in Madison.

Does it really matter if you end up losing to lizard brains or just other Americans as you are beaten down legislatively, electorally, and culturally? In the end, the results are the same, are they not? I suppose you'd be more bitter about the first than the latter, but frankly that's probably a difference without distinction.

Also note how, when they switch back to protests in Madison, the video tag is changed from "Union Protests" to "Madison, Wisconsin". Then back to "Union Protests" when they start talking about union protests on the national scale.

You have to be an idiot to claim tht FOX misrepresented anything here.

Let's say O'Reilly was talking about -- oh I don't know -- People who use Computers at work for non-work purposes -- and then cut away to a picture of me. What would a reasonable conclusion about Computer use at work and me be based on the images you see?

Now we know why the camel was there! He saw the clip, couldn't bother reading the caption or listening to the context, and assumed there were palm trees in Madison. And so he decided: where there are palm trees, they gotta have camels!

So Madison, I guess when they cut to Obama giving his speech, you assumed it was in Madison WI?

Blogger keeps eating my comments, but a review CLEARLY shows the vid tag "Madison, WI" when they are showing protests in Madison, and "Union Protests" when they cut back to showing the protests on the national scale.

RV and Garage: Are you asserting that Fox used the old palm tree trick that there are no actual protesters or union goons in Madison? What, exactly, was the trick? I am intrigued at gullible either you are or how gullible you think most people are. It is believed by the right wing that the left wing believes most people stupid and in need of their help. Does this prove that old saw?

And roachy you should know that asking questions is not only the right of scumbag so called journalists. Any taxpayer should be able to ask anyone a question and film the answer without the camera getting jerked out of his hand.

Or do you teach that only an elite is allowed first amendment rights and all of the rest of us who don't agree with you should just shut up?

roesch-voltaire said...Fen at least Meade didn't edit in protestors from another sate, palm trees and all to make a false and dishonest connection, so I give him credit or that. But I have seen enough of Meade's work to recognize he has been "pushing' his Flip into the faces of all sorts of folks from the police to speech teachers in the hope of stirring up some violence.

3/2/11 11:57 AM

roesch-voltaire , You are saying something that isn't true, isn't supported by any evidence, and you need to take it back.

Garage, you need to dump the Fox News obsession, its making you look at nutty as all the rest of the nutty leftists who erroneously think that the existance of a news outlet they don't control is the reason their message fails.

And roachy you should know that asking questions is not only the right of scumbag so called journalists. Any taxpayer should be able to ask anyone a question and film the answer without the camera getting jerked out of his hand.

Or do you teach that only an elite is allowed first amendment rights and all of the rest of us who don't agree with you should just shut up?

We need to stop wringing our hands over this liberal crap and simply call it for what it is - Tactics of the "Entitled." Tactics used confuse and intimidate other's into doing what they want - to take from those who produce more than they do in the name of "fairness." Like Brezhnev said concerning Soviet diplomacy, "What's ours is ours... and that's theirs is ours, too."Call them out, fight fire with fire, and know from the start that the deck is already stacked against us. (please ignore the typos... I have two left hands...)

What was so "over-aggressive" about those two? The woman especially was pretty civil.

Maybe Meade and Ann are getting a little exhausted too?

What's with "For a person who teaches public speaking you don't listen very well"? Why not say "I'm not affiliated with Walker at all, and I'm taping this for a website"? What's the point of wading in there? It can't be just to record the atmosphere. That's been done plenty. Some actual dialogue would be interesting, but that doesn't seem to be as important as generating good video.

I appreciate the coverage, especially as I sit here safe and warm, critiquing. But is the point to illuminate or instigate?

Garage, you need to dump the Fox News obsession, its making you look at nutty as all the rest of the nutty leftists who erroneously think that the existance of a news outlet they don't control is the reason their message fails.

Just pointing out the latest howler from Fox. Other way around though I'm afraid, if Fox thought their ideas are winning they wouldn't have to resort to inverting poll numbers or running footage of another protest. Walker had to bus in 200 pro Walker supporters and slip them in the Capitol. Rove and Koch wouldn't be running ads on my TV. And Koch's PAC wouldn't be sponsoring a "I Stand with Scott!" bus tour, if they thought they were winning with the public. And the latest NBC/WSJ poll coming out today shows "33% say it's acceptable and 62% unacceptable to eliminate state employees' collective-bargaining rights".

sounds like "overheated emotional atmosphere that researchers on collective violence call ‘the hysteria zone,’ It is a zone in which deranged individuals can be motivated to real violence against those targeted by demagoguery.”

"What was so "over-aggressive" about those two? The woman especially was pretty civil."

If you're in public and someone - particularly someone on a political side that is grossly outnumbered - declines to play verbal volleyball with you, the right thing to do is drop it and move on. They would not.

Losing their grip on reality. I admit that I'm having trouble grasping what grip (grasp?) on reality they had in the first place. Why would I support their right to something that I never had, and don't think there's any reason I should have it? Why would I be more impressed if they spend three weeks loudly demanding it?

Honestly. Scott Walker said himself on the fake Koch phone call that he thought about having supporters of his in the crowds to rile the protesters. With that they are in the wrong for harassing and taking the camera.

The protests in Wisconsin have been peaceful. Even when opposition has shown up. Both sides have been congenial to each other. The police who have been monitoring the crowds said so themselves.

Jessica D: Honestly. Scott Walker said himself on the fake Koch phone call that he thought about having supporters of his in the crowds to rile the protesters.

And the idea was, of course, dismissed.

The protests in Wisconsin have been peaceful. Even when opposition has shown up. Both sides have been congenial to each other. The police who have been monitoring the crowds said so themselves.

Relative to the protests in other cities in support of the Madison rallies, that is probably true. There have been arrests in Madison, however, and last night a mob chased and chanted at a Republican legislator, a scene which didn't look at all peaceful to me.

The one thing that should be taken from AA's posts, above all, is that the people still sleeping in the Capitol need to be forcefully removed, or arrested if necessary. This is not about their ideologies, but rather their health. I'm [very] against the bill, but what I saw in the Capitol yesterday was awful.

Some of the remaining protesters are so far gone from sleep deprivation that it's undoubtedly going to be detrimental to their health. I'm not a protester and I'm certainly not a Walker supporter, but at some point people really need to start getting concerned about what's happening in that building.

What I find puzzling is where the protesters think this is going. "[T]he protest drags on and protesters are … frustrated and tired of nothing happening," but what do they suppose will happen? From a distance, it looks like their primary strategy of intimidating the assembly has failed, and it's hard to see what more can be gained. It seems to me that they will either lose or be irrelevant to victory: The Senate will pass the bill, or it will by stymied by the absent Democrats, not the protesters.

Even if that analysis is correct, I realize that the protesters are unlikely to consciously accept this (which makes sense), and lacking any better ideas, they stay. But that simply reframes my question: stay until what? what is the endgame?

Walker had to bus in 200 pro Walker supporters and slip them in the Capitol. Rove and Koch wouldn't be running ads on my TV. And Koch's PAC wouldn't be sponsoring a "I Stand with Scott!" bus tour

Well, yes, organized labor does tend to be more, ah, organized when it comes to these things. It's why they exist. The average taxpayer doesn't have a machine in place round the clock for such frivolities.

Well, Oligonicella, here's the definition of "aggressive" - if a salesperson can be aggressive, not taking 'no' for an answer, I suppose I would characterize these people similarly - but if you like, I'll submit that refusing to lay off a stranger who doesn't want to talk to you is just rude, instead (though I still think it's aggressive behavior):

1. characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: aggressive acts against a neighboring country.2. making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive: an aggressive basketball player.3. vigorously energetic, especially in the use of initiative and forcefulness: an aggressive salesperson.4. boldly assertive and forward; pushy: an aggressive driver.

> ...the fist is an international symbol for strength, defiance and solidarity. I don't think it's meant to symbolize violence, which is what you're insinuating. Maybe you should read up on your history?

Maybe you should consider the possibility that a fist can have other meanings *in addition* to your international symbol.

It can also represent violence. Ever been punched in the face? It was probably done with a fist.

Between Meade's video and the one of the poor Republican senator being hounded against a door at the Capitol, I believe it's not long before someone gets off a leash and does someone harm.

I just saw the 12 min tape of the Republican senator being hounded. It is frightening to think what would have happened to him had his Democratic colleague not intervened. This was the closest thing to mob violence that I have seen. It reminded me of the mob scene in The Ox-Bow incident.

Meade my observation was based the video of you pushing yourself past the police, who were trying keep an orderly line going into the capitol, one which I did not mind following. You continued line of questioning, including the comment that the protestor doesn't listen very well, all the while refusing to give you name, or your purpose caused me to wonder about your purpose, which I interpreted as one likely to raise defensiveness, which it did. Frankly to me It was different in tone and view point from your War Memorial lecture, which I found more to the point in its line of questioning/lecturing. While presently I teach in the College of Engineering, I was a photo journalist, among other occupations, before I became an academic. As such I covered strikes, and protests, including a major protest in Manhattan. I developed a sense of how to work with folks in sometimes tense environments-- just how far I could go in invading their space-- I did not lecture folks, although I had to ask them hard questions about their actions.. It seems to me that you like to invade and stir things up certainly more than the couple who were trying to dialog with the Waker women, and probably would have given up in a short time,-- but your presence helped to stir the pot-- to provoke not evoke; I still stand by that.

We're definitely seeing some of the darker side of group psychology. Including why those who consider themselves in the same group as the union protesters, like some of the commenters here, defend their violent and near-violent actions.

"While co-operation within group members is generally not so much of a problem, co-operation between groups can be hellish. People may be individually co-operative, but once put in a 'them-and-us' situation, rapidly become remarkably adversarial."

Well, it’s been quite a spectacle: the drama, the hubris (“This is what democracy looks / sounds like.”), the photos. I’ve been clicking Althouse pretty obsessively up until now. It’s an obvious antidote to the liberal narrative, and close reading of Ann’s comments provides some respite from the conservative one as well. The photos have been the best part for me-- both Meade’s and Ann’s.

But the videos--

Somehow I just can’t feel comfortable watching people not liking being filmed. The notion that anyone who takes part in a public demonstration has no right to be unhappy when a stranger films them at close range is a very uncomfortable notion for me. I can easily imagine people doing their part to swell the crowd, but not wanting to be singled out and presented on film, just as I can sympathize with someone carrying a sign not wanting to quizzed and double-teamed by opponents.

I guess I liked Meade better in his role as blog everyman (as it has seemed to me).. gently sardonic, good humored, big-hearted. His on-video remarks were described as mediation, but they haven’t come across that way to me. “Did you vote? Who are YOU?” I got a whiff of Bill O’Reilly at the end when the man who was uneasily swinging his sign across his face, alternately blocking the view of the camera was asked if he was ashamed.

I suppose there is something instructive in the degrees of hostility exhibited by those being filmed, but in the end, it all seemed to be all about the camera. Is there a way to change this? Couldn’t Meade introduce himself and ask permission before filming, maybe even do audio-only for the camera shy? All along, I’ve been hoping for something more to be revealed from these videos, than just mob psychology and political delusions. Maybe it’s time for me to back away from the internet.

Some comments seem to be suggesting a theme that the thug elements cannot be teachers and must be outside union goons or Madison radicals. That thinking is supported only by the assumption that they would have had to return to class by now. I personally witnessed a union riot during the Masterlock strike in the early 80s, led in large part by the radical Racine teachers union - flying bricks, stop signs ripped out & used to ram through car windows, etc. I wish I had a Flip/You Tube back then. The Madison thuggery to date is nothing in comparison. I was a poor college student doing summer work during the strike. Of course per the Left, as a "scab" we all deserved it. As I recall, no arrests & a very small whitewash article in the liberal newspaper.

...degrees of hostility exhibited by those being filmed, but in the end, it all seemed to be all about the camera. Is there a way to change this?

A picture is worth a thousand words, a video - millions. In a non-video recorded interaction, one can spin it however they want, toss blame and accusations at the other side. When video recorded, this is much harder to impossible to do. It strips people of whatever defenses they have or may use to explain their actions and words. They feel very threatened because people will see them.

Susan said... "The notion that anyone who takes part in a public demonstration has no right to be unhappy when a stranger films them at close range is a very uncomfortable notion for me. I can easily imagine people doing their part to swell the crowd, but not wanting to be singled out and presented on film…."

I would agree with you if you were talking about accosting someone who was minding their own business on the street. But that's not the case here. A man has a right to anonymous political speech, but if he slips off the cloak of anonymity and steps into the public square to speak his mind, isn't it a bit of a cheek for him to ask the audience to avert their eyes?

Moreover, the protesters' own proffered justification is that they're trying to make their voices heard, is it not? One might think that opportunities to speak would be welcomed by someone who wants to be heard. To be sure, such an encounter would presumably be less welcome to someone who simply wanted to add one more warm body to a mob assembled to intimidate by sheer numbers, but I'm sure that isn't the case here.

" Yet when they perceive that Meade isn't one of them they flip — it's a Flip camera — into fear.

... and instead of seeing Meade as a citizen who's finding out what's going on and helping 2 women who are surrounded and outnumbered, they spread their "plant" theory. And it's not just a theory. They know he's a plant."

I've seen this before. A colleague over called this his Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories. Granted, that's aimed specifically towards paranoid delusionists talking about 9/11 woo and the like, but in a way, it relevant here:

"When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction."

And:"The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.

Conversely, reaching the Inflationary Limit logically implies that any alternate hypothesis is superior to the conspiracy hypothesis.

Therefore, a conspiracy theory that reaches the Inflationary Limit is by definition the worst of all possible hypotheses."

Again, this was intended to describe a specific group, but again, it happens to describe this behavior too. It's a combination of a corrupted version of "If you're not with us, you're against us", and the apocryphal "I didn't know anyone who voted for him" attitudes. Those folks can't imagine anyone not holding their views with them, so they imagine that anyone questioning it is not a neutral party, but rather is a "shill", or a "disinfo agent" sent to troll them for reactions. Typical paranoid delusinary behavior. You usually see it in people pushing JFK "Grassy Knoll" stuff or 9/11 trutherism though.

While I'm at it, might as well point out something else that same person came up with: A treatise on "Irreducible Delusion" as it pertains to conspiracy theorists (so no, it's not a perfect fit here, but I still say it's relevant, although the relevance has to be drawn out):

"An Irreducible Delusion has two defining characteristics. First, as the name implies, it is irreducible, meaning that it is a belief that stands on its own and is not dependent on any other information; and it is a delusion, or in other words a belief that is demonstrably false or untenable. It is important, though often difficult, to isolate the Irreducible Belief from other, consequential beliefs. When it is found, it is usually surprisingly simple. It also may be recognized based on typical responses to criticism, which include the following:*Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses; *Demands for a disproof, rather than providing any evidence; *Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate; and *Dropping discussion of the belief altogether, in seeming acquiescence of superior logic, only to bring it up again unchanged at a later date.

The Irreducible Delusion is fundamentally an example of the rare existential fallacy, and the consequences thereof constitute (at best) a vacuous truth. In other words, were the Irreducible Delusion actually a true fact, the logical consequences would be plausible, but no logic based upon a false premise is ever valid."

I won't pretend that the man writing this would be unsympathetic to the Unionists in Wisconsin. On the contrary, I believe he's likely very much on their side. However, he is quite a clear thinker in my view, and I don't see it as a corruption or misuse of his words to posit that they may indeed apply here to these demonstrators.

I watched Meade's video and the video of the poor Republican Legislator being chased into a corner. The incessant drumming disturbs me - I wonder how many of the 'protesters' there are in a semi-hypnotic trance from the constant beating of drums, the whistles, the chanting? I wonder how easy it will be for some thug to start chanting something very evil - like kill him, kill him, and then, when the half-crazed crowd does kill someone - what then?

I think the Governor needs to stop this. It is disturbing the peace. These protesters are not nice people. Someone is going to be hurt, or worse.

That same person continues with a treatise on the "Irreducible Delusion". Again, this was originally aimed at describing conspiracy theorists, but again, I argue that it can be applied here:

"An Irreducible Delusion has two defining characteristics. First, as the name implies, it is irreducible, meaning that it is a belief that stands on its own and is not dependent on any other information; and it is a delusion, or in other words a belief that is demonstrably false or untenable. It is important, though often difficult, to isolate the Irreducible Belief from other, consequential beliefs. When it is found, it is usually surprisingly simple. It also may be recognized based on typical responses to criticism, which include the following:

* Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses; * Demands for a disproof, rather than providing any evidence; * Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate; and * Dropping discussion of the belief altogether, in seeming acquiescence of superior logic, only to bring it up again unchanged at a later date.

The Irreducible Delusion is fundamentally an example of the rare existential fallacy, and the consequences thereof constitute (at best) a vacuous truth. In other words, were the Irreducible Delusion actually a true fact, the logical consequences would be plausible, but no logic based upon a false premise is ever valid."

Disclaimer: This fellow is probably not unsympathetic to the Wisconsin unions. In fact, based on other posts from him, he's probably rather liberal and sympathetic to the Wisconsin demonstrators. That said, he's one of the clearest thinkers I've ever seen, and I do not see it as a corruption or misuse of his words to posit that they might possibly apply here to those demonstrators, that they can indeed be used to describe at minimum the subset of people that Meade has recorded on video, regardless of where the original author's sympathies may lie.

What's the irreducible delusion? I'll throw that out to everyone else here to determine. But that said, I see behavior described well, if not 100% perfectly, by the above description of responses to queries.

Meade engages, he just doesn’t, necessarily, agree….I’ve engaged many people, on Free Speech Areas, with whom I disagreed…”engagement” ISN’T seeking common ground or being a door mat…it is engaging, determining the other sides’ arguments and ability to argue…. IF, in your view, engagement means agreemtn, then “No” Meade does not “engage.”

I engage people wearing “Che” T-shirts, usually by asking if their Hitler T-shirt was dirty and why they like supporting a Homophobe…If they can defend themselves OK, usually they just run away or sputter or look dumb-founded …hey they CHOSE to make a “statement” by wearing a Che shirt, even if their statement is, “I’m a historically illiterate doofus who doesn’t understand a THING about the person I have on my chest.’ So too, the people Meade engages, they turned out, in public, to “support” some position. NOW, they have to defend their support…if they can’t not Meade’s problem. Socrates informed people, and he didn’t “engage” nicely, simply politely.

Meade engages, he just doesn’t, necessarily, agree….I’ve engaged many people, on Free Speech Areas, with whom I disagreed…”engagement” ISN’T seeking common ground or being a door mat…it is engaging, determining the other sides’ arguments and ability to argue…. IF, in your view, engagement means agreement, then “No” Meade does not “engage.”

I engage people wearing “Che” T-shirts, usually by asking if their Hitler T-shirt was dirty and why they like supporting a Homophobe…If they can defend themselves OK, usually they just run away or sputter or look dumb-founded …hey they CHOSE to make a “statement” by wearing a Che shirt, even if their statement is, “I’m a historically illiterate doofus who doesn’t understand a THING about the person I have on my chest.’ So too, the people Meade engages, they turned out, in public, to “support” some position. NOW, they have to defend their support…if they can’t not Meade’s problem. Socrates informed people, and he didn’t “engage” nicely, simply politely.

But if you turn up in a Public Space for a Public DEMONSTRATION, you might expect PUBLIC NOTICE…sorry if that bothers you. My firm does a certain kind of business, I try to stay away from rallies or demonstrations that might touch upon that particular business. Why, because someone might film me and/or question me, and I don’t care to be seen “advocating” or at least APPEAR to be seen advocating for a particular business decision… I try to AVOID Public Demonstrations. I’d recommend anyone who doesn’t want to be on YouTube to do likewise.

Speaking of a less than stellar moment, I can't get over this photograph. The caption identifies this guy. He actually seems to do pretty neat art work. He doesn't appear to be a teacher according to his info at his web site. But, guess what image more people will remember him for than any other. That's why people hate cameras.

I’m enjoying the undercurrent from Union/Obama acolytes, that there is altogether too much Speech going on around here…Speech and filming, are a part of the “guerilla tactics” the Left loves, folks not leftist ought not be practicing them! To do so is uncivil or aggressive or simply not Kosher…Allen’s’ “Maccacca moment” that was FINE, but really interviewing anti-Walker people is simply crossing some polite boundary.

"But that simply reframes my question: stay until what? what is the endgame?"

Since the unions have thrown in the towel on the money terms, all that's left is the dispute over bargaining rights. That's an issue about the unions' power to get back what they just said they were willing to give up, which they would try to do in a year or three when the dust has settled a bit through the usual collective bargaining with friendly Dem-pols, or mandatory arbitration if the Rep-pols are still in charge.

Getting back tomorrow today's give-backs is, in turn, all about power and political influence, so logically the 'until what' is the next election -- either the next one in the regular course, or the next one in a recall context. The folks currently carrying the signs and banging the drums won't stay that long, but that's just a way of acknowledging that making noise and milling about for its own sake is not the point of the protest. Both the protestors and, more importantly, the folks calling the shots for the unions are trying to rally the voters to their side in this (not doing a good job of it, but that's beside the point). Since they don't have the votes in the legislature as presently composed, they have no other choice but to focus on the next election.

Neither does Walker of the Rep legislators he is counting on passing his reforms. Assuming Walker gets his plan passed, the next election will provide the voters' verdict. Not that it will end there either.

It's all ultimately political positioning, in the 24/7 political cycle that never ends. That's a game that has no end.

Susan said... "The notion that anyone who takes part in a public demonstration has no right to be unhappy when a stranger films them at close range is a very uncomfortable notion for me. I can easily imagine people doing their part to swell the crowd, but not wanting to be singled out and presented on film…."

I might agree with you if we were talking about accosting someone walking around minding his own business. Not so here. A man has a right to anonymous political speech, but if he slips off the cloak of anonymity and steps into the public square to speak his mind, isn't it a little much for him to ask his audience to avert their eyes?

Moreover, the protesters' own proffered justification is that they're trying to make their voices heard, is it not? If that is so, one might think that opportunities to speak would be welcomed by someone who wants to be heard. To be sure, such an encounter would presumably be less welcome to someone who simply wanted to add one more warm body to a mob assembled to intimidate by sheer numbers, but I'm sure that isn't the case here.